NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL S. YELLEN, No. 14-16344
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00134-JMS-
BMK
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Michael S. Yellen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging violations of
federal constitutional law and international law arising from the 1893 overthrow of
the Hawaiian monarchy and Hawaii’s subsequent annexation by the United States.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pakootas v.
Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., 646 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Yellen’s action because his claims
presented non-justiciable political questions over which the district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction. See Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 980 (9th
Cir. 2007) (holding that “the presence of a political question deprives a court of
subject matter jurisdiction” and explaining that a non-justiciable political question
is found when there is “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the
issue to a coordinate political department” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to
amend. See McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2004)
(finding “[t]he district court did not err in denying leave to amend because
amendment would have been futile”).
In light of our disposition, we do not address the merits of Yellen’s claims.
We reject as without merit Yellen’s contention that he was entitled to
discovery.
2 14-16344
Yellen’s expedited motion for injunctive relief and/or permanent injunction,
filed on July 15, 2016, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-16344